Effectiveness of fire in combat?
Select messages from
 # through # Forum FAQ
[/[Print]\]
Goto page Previous  1, 2  :| |:
Close Combat Series -> The Mess
#21: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:10 am
    —
Dima wrote (View Post):
Yes, they think it was PG-7VR.

Here is one of the articles about the incident:
http://www.rense.com/general44/what.htm

That 1.5 kilo octogen charge would create one hell of a hotspot.
Its EV Should be classified high high explosive.
#22: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Therion,  PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:04 pm
    —
Nacrox wrote (View Post):
Operation Flashpoint 1 or OFP DR?

Because if you refer to the ARMA/OFP series, then the accuracy is a little too much good for a combat situation, the problem of the series is that the terrain is too much flat and there isn't really cover for it, so to make it balanced, the AI can engage from really long distances, and you can aim with ironsights that add a little of zoom to aim better as the AI does. (this is playing with mods that make the AI engage longer, like WGL)

I don't think iron sights add zoom in comparison to real life - everything in game is smaller because the screen in much smaller than view in RL, so it kinda compensates for that.

I think that the terrain and lack of trenches is the main fault of the game. Still, when I played WWI mod and basically popped up from the cover of a breastwork, I still got about 10-20% accuracy against mobile, firing targets at range 200-40m, which is consistent with the stats that I have posted.

Personally, I find aiming in OFP rather difficult because it's difficult to precisely move the rifle.

Nacrox wrote (View Post):
I prefer the combat efectiveness of Red Orchestra Osfront, there you can't really aim to a target a 300m because the fire of the enemy makes you to fire without fixing your ironsights in the target effectivelly.

How does it work?

From what I've seen in OFP, suppression should be much more effective there - for example I have learn that I can fire just a few shots before enemies will be able to deliver accurate fire. There are several missed shoots/or long aiming period, and then they kill my character.
So, in practice soon after anyone gets fired at, they need to find cover asap and it's quite possible that after the enemy has "fired-in" the range, when you'll stick out your head, you're dead.
#23: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Nacrox,  PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:40 pm
    —
Well, I just did a test with a 10man squad of k98's (i know, it isn't the real composition of it), vs a 10 man squad of mosin's.

The firefight started at 600m, and ended at 500m

I killed three men, I had to aim higher than where the dude was, and I lost all my ammo (8 magazines)

I did another test at 250m, and I killed 4, injured at the end, and I used 2 magazines, the firefight lasted very short compared to the one of 600m

I found it too much accuracy for 250m, but for the 600m it's okay, so i don't know if it's something that can be changed from the game or it's just that I have played it too much Razz.

Anyway, in RO i haven't killed someone at 250m, because when something explodes near you, or a bullet pass near your head, the game oscure the view and makes the aim shaking for a momment, simulating suppression, and if you trust on me, that happens a LOT in that game, I would say that you are crawling the 90% of the game to not get killed
#24: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Therion,  PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:38 pm
    —
Nacrox wrote (View Post):
Well, I just did a test with a 10man squad of k98's (i know, it isn't the real composition of it), vs a 10 man squad of mosin's.

The firefight started at 600m, and ended at 500m

I killed three men, I had to aim higher than where the dude was, and I lost all my ammo (8 magazines)

I did another test at 250m, and I killed 4, injured at the end, and I used 2 magazines, the firefight lasted very short compared to the one of 600m

I found it too much accuracy for 250m, but for the 600m it's okay, so i don't know if it's something that can be changed from the game or it's just that I have played it too much Razz.

It's because usually you don't start a fight in clear even terrain on 250m. And if there would be a cover, they would dash for it and after a short time you wouldn't be able to shot at them at all.

Then at 600m, I think there's a problem with the AI. I checked an engagement at ~600m with Soviet squad and a Maxim vs. a German platoon. It ended up with my squad surviving with 2 losses and two other squads getting completely massacred in a few minutes.
It was because I have went to the ground and pulled out my squad in time. The others got massacred because they continued advancing.

Nacrox wrote (View Post):
Anyway, in RO i haven't killed someone at 250m, because when something explodes near you, or a bullet pass near your head, the game oscure the view and makes the aim shaking for a momment, simulating suppression, and if you trust on me, that happens a LOT in that game, I would say that you are crawling the 90% of the game to not get killed

I'm not sure if that's what suppression means in RL. I think it's supposed to keep you from exposing yourself to fire, not to make you unable to aim.
#25: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Nacrox,  PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:23 pm
    —
In OFP the effectivity of the AI is calculate with a skill valor, and, by default, it's 0.2 on cannon fodder, and 0.4 in the seniors, and 0.5 to the leaders... That apply to all units that you put with the group screen.

In the test I upgraded the AI skill to +0.25 to the default values, so they were better that the "original" ones.

Anyway, it depends of every mod, some mods have the engagement values higher (like WGL, SLX and WW2MP), and anothers have the original engagement values (circa 300-250m, they don't shoot at longer rates, instead they run to get at that distance and you just need to pick them as they run at you), so it's config.cpp based.

---------------------------------------

I strongly suggest you to watch and Red Orchestra Ostfront video and see it by yourself, and i don't know but i think that suppression mean the fact that an enemy that is in constantly fire, is going to see his own life instead of return accurate fire... In RO it's simulated by the fact that you obscure your view when a bullet pass over your head, like a tinkering of the eyes, and make the rifle shakes more, because the soldiers become more nervious or mentally affected... But RO isn't a simulator of war, it's more a relaxed-sim than that, and for example the long routes to the firefights from the respawn zone makes you think twice if it's better to launch you to your death or find a cover and return random fire.

OFP isn't a infantry simulator either, it only haves the battlefield feel, without the respawns (some missions have revive respawn, other serious clans used missions without any respawn), and all the long firefights in squads, and it depends of the mission itself more than the game/mod that is used

-----------------------------------------------

Returning to the actual discution, the actual fact is that a rookie soldier is going to hessitate to pull the trigger more than an experienced soldier, and that will make to miss more shots than the veteran that is aiming with causion his shots.

The problem is that it requires almost no fear to actually aim shots when you are under heavy fire, even if the fire isn't going right at you, and almost none of the army's use too many tracer rounds, so only the sound of various guns firing will make you to find cover instead of looking what is really going on
#26: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: papa_whisky,  PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:48 pm
    —
The number of rounds fired per 'kill' has greatly increased since the second world war. This is probably the combination of greater numbers of semi and fully automatic weapons and the general rule, as already stated, that soldiers (especially not very well trained ones) tend to shoot towards the enemy rather than at them.

The general use of smaller calibre rounds adds to this, as infantry carry more rounds creating a tendency to be more liberal with use of ammunition (i.e. infantrymen will use as much as they can as long as they don't run the risk of running out).

Larger calibre rounds tend to weigh more and have a bigger charge. This when combined with a long barrel gives a high muzzle velocity and high momentum. This gives a longer and more accurate range compared to smaller calibre on a shorter barrel.

The stopping power of a round is a combination of its momentum on impact and what the round does to the body when it impacts. Smaller lighter rounds have a greater tendency to breakup tumble and ricochet within the body, the shockwave caused by the impact will be less. At shorter distances the 5.56 is probably more effective than the 7.62 in its ability to incapacitate a target, at longer distances less so.

In Afghanistan the Taliban knowing at shorter distances they cannot deliver sufficient fire power to win firefights so they attempt to engage at longer distances with their older larger calibre weapons. Hence the allies have now started to reintroduce 7.62 weapons back into the rifle squad.
#27: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Therion,  PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:21 pm
    —
Nacrox wrote (View Post):
I strongly suggest you to watch and Red Orchestra Ostfront video and see it by yourself, and i don't know but i think that suppression mean the fact that an enemy that is in constantly fire, is going to see his own life instead of return accurate fire... In RO it's simulated by the fact that you obscure your view when a bullet pass over your head, like a tinkering of the eyes, and make the rifle shakes more, because the soldiers become more nervious or mentally affected... But RO isn't a simulator of war, it's more a relaxed-sim than that, and for example the long routes to the firefights from the respawn zone makes you think twice if it's better to launch you to your death or find a cover and return random fire.

The main problem with such mechanics is that they are usually redundant. Player is usually excited, which decreases aiming accuracy and aiming with mouse is much slower and less precise than aiming with actual weapon held in hand. From my experience with BB guns, aiming (even as in purely lining up the sights with the targets) at even relatively close objects with mouse is much more difficult than aiming in RL and being under fire in game additionally makes it harder due to nervousness (as the player will lose all his progress in mission if he dies).
I would say that there should be suppression rules for the AI, though as id doesn't have any such problems. Being hit by the AI is mainly the function of time - usually it's something like 10 seconds before one is hit when the AI is targeting the player, even with very bad AI skills.
Meanwhile for example poorly trained Iraqi fighters were known to usually miss horribly a lot while using up a lot of ammo.

Nacrox wrote (View Post):
Returning to the actual discution, the actual fact is that a rookie soldier is going to hessitate to pull the trigger more than an experienced soldier, and that will make to miss more shots than the veteran that is aiming with causion his shots.

Even when the rookie soldier is after shooting 1000s of rounds in training under a competent instructor while the veteran is a fighter with no formal training?
Close Combat Series -> The Mess


output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Goto page Previous  1, 2  :| |:
Page 2 of 2